Breaking the Deadlock
The 2000 Election, the Constitution and the Courts
By Richard A. Posner
Princeton University Press
266 pgs., $24.95

Answering the Supreme
Court's critics

By Steven Martinovichweb
posted August 20, 2001

If
the winner writes history, the 2000 election deadlock has been the almost
sole province of the loser. Lawyer/authors like Alan Dershowitz and Vincent
Bugliosi have provided their two cents of commentary and argued that the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision was little more than a legal coup d'etat
which stole the presidency from the American people, or as Dershowitz
argued, the court's majority let its desire for a particular partisan
outcome have priority over legal principles.

Au contraire, argues Richard A. Posner, Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals judge. Not only did the high court make a legally defensible decision
when it stopped the recounts, the decision was sound because it spared
Americans from a protracted and unprecedented constitutional crisis and
from a temporary Lawrence Summers presidency.

Posner undertook the arduous task of explaining the problems in Florida
which lead to the deadlock and defending the Supreme Court in the recently
released Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution
and the Courts. In it, Posner makes conclusions that aren't likely
to please either side and recommendations that will likely never be acted
upon.

Posner asserts that a majority of Florida voters probably had intended
on voting for Al Gore but a confluence of factors - a poorly designed
ballot chief among them - saw thousands of people, mostly African-Americans
and recent immigrants, either vote for someone else or ruin their ballots.
After Election Day, the problems only grew larger thanks to state election
law that actually hindered electoral officials and a Florida Supreme Court
that made some constitutionally questionable decisions.

Of course, that mess neatly dovetailed the legal wrangling ("hydra-headed,
complex and intricate" as he describes it) by the Gore and Bush teams.
While he mildly rebukes both teams of lawyers for mistakes, such as legal
strategies by the Gore team which essentially ate up the one thing he
didn't have a lot of: time, he generally gives them good marks. Both teams
performed well given the pressure of time and the lack of electoral law experience

Posner saves his harshest words for the legal analysts who crowded the
airwaves (at times it almost seems like he wants to name names - Dershowitz
perhaps) during and after the deadlock. Most, he writes, were constitutional
experts who didn't know the Constitution very well ("...they are
like Talmudists who have forgotten the Bible itself") and what they
did know came from previous Supreme Court decisions. Because of the unprecedented
nature of the 2000 wrangling, Posner asserts, that meant they essentially
didn't know what they were talking about and only whipped up more hostility.

The most important areas of the book, however, deal with the decisions
made by the Supreme Court and why Posner believes they are both defensible
and pragmatic. Although the decisions raise the spectre of further judicial
activism - something that should give conservatives pause and embolden
liberals seeking remedy in the courts in the future - Posner maintains
had the selection of president moved to Congress, the aftermath would
have been even bitterer. The Supreme Court essentially traded some of
its short-term prestige for peace. Whether it was ultimately the right
decision is one for future historians to argue.

Posner ends Breaking the Deadlock with voting reforms - both constitutional
and otherwise - to avoid future deadlocks. Among them, he argues that
the potential for runaway electors - those pledged to one candidate but
vote for another - be eliminated by requiring electors in a state to vote
for the candidate chosen by the voters, a rewriting of election codes
be undertaken, and some $583 million be spent deploying new voting technology.

Ultimately, Posner's success probably depends little on his analysis
and conclusions and more on who the reader supported in November and although
his prescriptions for election reform are voter friendly, it's doubtful
they will ever see the light of day because of the self-interest of incumbent
politicians afraid of something that may topple them. In the end, Posner's
book is much like the Supreme Court's decisions - it's logically defensible
but will be ignored in favor partisan attempts at scoring cheap points.

Steven Martinovich is a freelance writer and editor of Enter Stage
Right.

Buy Breaking the Deadlock: The 2000 Election, the Constitution
and the Courts from Amazon.com for
only $17.46 (30 per cent off)